Supreme Court Decides CTS Corp. v. Waldburger
On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, No. 13-339, holding that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 13-193, holding that a credible threat of enforcement of a law is sufficient to establish an Article III...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Lane v. Franks
On June 19, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided Lane v. Franks, No. 13-483, holding that a public employee's sworn testimony is entitled to First Amendment protection when it is given outside...
View ArticleNinth Circuit Weighs in on When Franchisors May Be Liable for Franchisees'...
In Thomas v. Taco Bell Corp.,[3] a franchisee association planned a promotion in which text messages were sent to 17,000 people in the Chicago area to promote a local sweepstakes contest. The lower...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association
On March 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, No. 13-1041, holding that a federal administrative agency does not need to use the Administrative...
View ArticleSprint Agrees to Pay FTC $2.95M Penalty to Settle FCRA Allegations
On October 21, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission announced an agreement with Sprint to resolve allegations that Sprint violated disclosure requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Sprint...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Evenwel v. Abbott
On April 4, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, holding that a state may draw legislative districts based on total population. In 2013, Texas adopted a new map...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, vacating the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanding to the Ninth Circuit to consider the...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194.
On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194, holding that a North Carolina statute that bars registered sex offenders from accessing social...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Ziglar v. Abbasi, No. 15-1358.
On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Ziglar v. Abbasi, No. 15-1358, which was consolidated with Ashcroft v. Abbasi, No. 15-1359 and Hasty v. Abbasi, No. 15-1363, holding that...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214.
On June 23, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, holding that, in determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred under the Takings Clause of the Fifth...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ...
On June 26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., No. 16-373, holding that the three-year statute of repose in the...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
On June 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, holding that states can require out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax on goods shipped...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Carpenter v. U.S.
On June 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Carpenter v. U.S., No. 16-402, holding that law enforcement, absent exigent circumstances, must get a warrant to obtain cell-site location...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Ohio v. American Express
On June 25, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Ohio v. American Express, No. 16-1454, holding that American Express’s antisteering rules, which prevent merchants from discouraging customers’...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
On June 26, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140, holding that the petitioners were likely to succeed on their claim...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc.
On June 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., No. 17-1705, holding that whether the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC)...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Flowers v. Mississippi
On June 21, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided Flowers v. Mississippi, No. 17-9572, holding that the state court committed clear error in concluding that the state’s peremptory strike of a...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Iancu v. Brunetti
On June 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302, holding that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering federal trademarks that are “immoral” or “scandalous”...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Rotkiske v. Klemm, et al.
On December 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Rotkiske v. Klemm, et al., No. 18-328, holding that the one-year statute of limitations set out in the Fair Debt Collection...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. v....
On June 30, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States decided United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. v. Booking.com B. V., No. 19-46, holding that a generic term, like “Booking,” combined...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
On June 29, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, holding that the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) must be removable at...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants
On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, No. 19-631, holding that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) exception for calls made...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru
On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267, holding that the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception,” under the religion...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Trump v. Vance
On July 9, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635, holding that President Donald Trump was required to respond to a state subpoena of his tax returns and other financial...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP
On July 9, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715, holding that in assessing whether a congressional subpoena directed at personal information of the president is...
View ArticleSupreme Court Decides Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid
On April 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, holding that to qualify as an “automatic telephone dialing system” (commonly referred to as an “autodialier”) under Section...
View Article
